Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

Originally Posted by 1750Texan

That is inccorect. The burden is on the pro-life students to show that their rights were violated. The party that is harmed brings suit.

please see other previous rulings on this. tinker case is still used. there also was a case in texas where a group tried to prohibit the cheerleaders from using bible verses on their sign. that was shot down as it violated their 1st amendment rights.

so far the standard of whether something has been allowed or not is if the school can show reasonable harm or that it will have reasonable harm.
a student standing in class and reading bible verses would be a disturbance to the class and others. the school does have the right to maintain control.

the school in this case allows other groups to use poster boards and other items when they want.

this is why schools lose so many free speech cases because they cannot overcome that burden of proof.

Re: Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

Originally Posted by Ikari

So ad homs are your recourse? So sad.

The Establishment Clause relates to religion and pro-life/pro-choice have nothing to do with religion. You yourself stated so. Ergo, I'm still awaiting your explanation. A proper explanation, please leave the insults and deflections out of it this time.

Excuse me put you started the insults: It seems to me that you're blindly grasping for anything here. You didn't even try to logically negate what I said and then announced, without knowing me and my intentions, you assume I am "grasping" for things. Sorry but either you present your argument honestly or you don't. You follow the latter.

I provided you with a legitimate source. Your failure to comprehend it is not my problem.

Re: Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

Originally Posted by Paxaeon

The issue is, can a public school limit the expression of free speech from a sanctioned student group. In cases like this, a federal law must have been violated. The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely.[/SIZE][/FONT]

And the aswer is: Yes, they can if they deem the speech to be disruptive. Just because the group is sanctioned, does not mean that they have absolute free speech at the school.

At the end of the day, schools are not total free speech areas. My guess is that courts are reluctant to get involved in minutia about whether an individual principal is being completely fair or not regarding what speech he allows.

In short, I bet this pro life group (and I am involved in pro life) needs to show that the principal was relentlessly suppressing all pro life speech at the school while sponsoring / allowing a mountain of pro choice speech. They cant show that. At best, they can show the principal has a mild progressive bias. I doubt this will be good enough as the courts dont want to second guess every principal in America.

Re: Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

Originally Posted by Cryptic

In short, I bet this pro life group (and I am involved in pro life) needs to show that the principal was relentlessly suppressing all pro life speech at the school while allowing a mountain of pro choice speech. They cant show that. At best, they can show the principal has a mild progressive bias. I doubt this will be good enough as the courts dont want to second guess every principal in America.

They would probably not even have to show that. Just show that it wasn't disruptive to the normal operation of the school. This is all assuming the court wouldn't find any of the pictures as lewd (From Bethel), which I doubt they would and as long as it is not a schools sponsor expressive activity (fromHazelwood).

Re: Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

Originally Posted by Cryptic

And the aswer is: Yes, they can if they deem the speech to be disruptive. Just because the group is sanctioned, does not mean that they have absolute free speech at the school.

At the end of the day, schools are not total free speech areas. my guess is that courts are reluctant to get involved in minutia about whether an individual principal is being completely fair or not.

In short, I bet this pro life group (and I am involved in pro life) needs to show that the principal was relentlessly suppressing all pro life speech at the school while allowing a mountain of pro choice speech. They cant show that. At best, they can show the principal has a mild progressive bias. I doubt this will be good enough as the courts dont want to second guess every principal in America.

The question is; does such a group even belong in a public school? I don't know. I will say I'd like to see the suit IF it heads to federal court.

Re: Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

Originally Posted by soccerboy22

They would probably not even have to show that. Just show that it wasn't disruptive to the normal operation of the school. This is all assuming the court wouldn't find any of the pictures as lewd (From Bethel), which I doubt they would and as long as it is not a schools sponsor expressive activity (fromHazelwood).

While I do respect your knowledge, and I hope you are correct, are you sure that the school must permit a particular speech at a particular time simply because it was not truly dusruptive?

My guess is that so long as the principal was willing to allow some pro life speech and a pro life group to be formed, the courts are going to give him some leeway on what he defines as "disruptive". Of course, the real reason for the censorship in this case is that the pro life speech was too effective, but I doubt the courts will take that step.

Originally Posted by Paxaeon

The question is; does such a group even belong in a public school? I don't know. I will say I'd like to see the suit IF it heads to federal court.

Well, if progressive political groups are allowed at that school, I dont see a valid reason to reject a pro life group just because they are pro life. As a side note, atheists can be pro life and a certain number are.

Re: Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

Originally Posted by Paxaeon

Excuse me put you started the insults: It seems to me that you're blindly grasping for anything here. You didn't even try to logically negate what I said and then announced, without knowing me and my intentions, you assume I am "grasping" for things. Sorry but either you present your argument honestly or you don't. You follow the latter.

I provided you with a legitimate source. Your failure to comprehend it is not my problem.

Please restate your inquiry in the form of an honest question.

There was nothing to logically negate, that was merely an honest assessment of your argument. Your argument is a mess built on "a federal law must have been violated", and "The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely". That's grasping. Because none of that is an actual argument. You feel that a federal law must have been violated. You have no proof one was, you have no argument one was. Just you think one must have been. Great...well there's a crap argument if ever a crap argument existed. The second part is also NOT AN ARGUMENT. It seems likely that the Establishment Clause has been violated. Why? How? Again, no poof, no evidence, no argument.

It's not a personal insult to say that it seems to me that you're blinding grasping for anything because your post appears to be blinding grasping for anything. There's no meat, there's no substance, there's no argument, no proof, no evidence. Nothing. You think that a federal law must have been violated and it seems that the Establishment Clause is the most likely one. Explain. How so? The only thing you've provided to me was links to Wikipedia that don't support your case.

So slower now, just for you, to hear the honest question that you have responded to only with hostility and deflection up to this point.

The Establishment Clause deals with government endorsement or establishment of a particular religion over the rest. Abortion is not a religious issue. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, by your own admission, not religious. So how is it that a clause meant to protect against religious tyranny is in play for non-religious causes. How is the Establishment Clause violated in this instance.

There is your honest question, now maybe you'll indulge me with an honest answer.

You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville

"I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."